-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 8, 2017

v No. 332624

Macomb Circuit Court

JOHNNIE DEREK ROGERS, LC No. 13-002050-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and GLEICHER and O’BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In 2013, defendant drove while intoxicated and collided with another vehicle, killing the 

driver. We previously affirmed defendant’s convictions for reckless driving causing death and 

driving under the influence causing death, but remanded for reconsideration of defendant’s 

upwardly departing sentences pursuant to the standards set forth in People v Steanhouse, 313 

Mich App 1; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I). On remand, the trial court reaffirmed 

defendant’s sentences, citing the reasons provided at the original sentencing hearing. Defendant 

again appealed. While his current appeal was pending, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled 

in part the analysis employed by this Court in Steanhouse I. People v Steanhouse, ___ Mich 

___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket Nos. 152671, 152849, 152871, 152872, 152873, 152947, and 

152948, decided July 24, 2017) (Steanhouse II). We now hold that the trial court “abuse[d] its 

discretion in applying the principal of proportionality by failing to provide adequate reasons for 

the extent of the departure sentence imposed,” as required by People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 

665; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), and therefore remand for resentencing as required by Steanhouse II, 

slip op at 19.

I. BACKGROUND

At the time defendant caused a fatal traffic accident, his blood alcohol content was 

approximately 0.27. Despite blood tests establishing his level of intoxication, vehicle computer 

data proving that he was driving almost 70 miles an hour seconds before the collision, crash 

scene forensics proving that defendant ran a red light and t-boned the victim’s vehicle, and the 

eyewitness accounts of three individuals who were strangers to both defendant and the victim, 

defendant insisted that he had done nothing wrong. The jury found the defense incredible and 

convicted defendant as charged.
-2-

Defendant’s minimum sentencing guidelines range was calculated at 43 to 86 months, 

given defendant’s total (offense variable) OV score of 80 points and total prior record variable 

score of 10 points. The trial court departed upward from the guidelines by 22 months and 

sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 9 to 15 years’ imprisonment. In doing so, the court 

stated, “I think what bothers me the most is you don’t take responsibility” and “you have a 

complete lack of remorse.” The court cited the eyewitness accounts of defendant’s reckless 

driving and defendant’s claim that someone tampered with his blood samples. The trial court 

further indicated that it adopted several factors proffered by the prosecution to support its 

departure sentence: First, defendant received a speeding ticket 90 minutes before the accident for 

going 84 in a 30 mile-an-hour zone, and the vehicle’s black box revealed that defendant was 

traveling “at least 70, seconds before the accident.” Second, “defendant never has accepted 

responsibility,” denying that he “operat[ed] in a reckless manner.” Third, defendant “never 

acknowledg[ed] the alcohol.” Rather, defendant accused the detective of tampering with his 

blood. Fourth, defendant was “three times over the legal limit in terms of the alcohol” at the 

time of the accident. Fifth, the “actual way he was driving seconds before [the accident] . . . 

exceeding the speed limit, over twice the speed, cutting in and out of traffic.”

As noted, defendant appealed following his trial. This Court affirmed defendant’s 

convictions, but remanded for further sentencing proceedings. Defendant’s appellate attorney 

had argued that the trial court failed to state substantial and compelling reasons in support of the 

departure sentence. While defendant’s first appeal was pending, however, the Michigan 

Supreme Court decided People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 391-392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), 

which rendered the legislative sentencing guidelines advisory only and struck down the former 

substantial-and-compelling review of departure sentences in favor of a reasonableness standard. 

This Court remanded to the trial court for further proceedings under United States v Crosby, 397 

F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005). Specifically, if defendant opted to continue with resentencing, we 

ordered the trial court to explain how the particular departure sentence was reasonable under the 

principle of proportionality. People v Rogers, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of 

Appeals, issued December 15, 2015 (Docket No. 323412), slip op at 4-5.

On remand, defendant chose to proceed with resentencing. The trial court again 

sentenced defendant to 9 to 15 years’ imprisonment. In doing so, it reiterated that 

“remorsefulness did not come until later” and that defendant had not “tak[en] responsibility for 

anything” involved in the accident. The court then reaffirmed the departure reasons stated on the 

record at the original sentencing hearing.

Defendant again appeals his sentences.

II. ANALYSIS

We review departure sentences for an abuse of discretion. Steanhouse II, slip op at 14. A 

trial court abuses its discretion if the imposed departure sentence is unreasonable, i.e., if it 

“violate[s] the principle of proportionality, which require[s] sentences imposed by the trial court 

to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the 

offender.” People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). See also Steanhouse I, 

313 Mich App at 42, 45.
-3-

In Steanhouse II, slip op at 15, the Supreme Court affirmed Steanhouse I’s readoption of 

the reasonableness standard set forth in Milbourn. The Milbourn Court applied the “principle of 

proportionality,” holding that “ ‘a given sentence [could] be said to constitute an abuse of 

discretion if that sentence violate[d] the principle of proportionality . . . .’ ” Steanhouse I, 313 

Mich App at 45, quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636. In imposing sentence, the court must take 

“ ‘into account the nature of the offense and the background of the offender’ ” Id., quoting 

Milbourn, 435 Mich at 651. Departure sentences “ ‘are appropriate where the guidelines do not 

adequately account for important factors legitimately considered at sentencing’ ” as well as when 

“ ‘the recommended range under the guidelines is disproportionate, in either direction, to the 

seriousness of the crime.’ ” Id., quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 656-657. In Steanhouse II, the 

Supreme Court further clarified this Court’s objective by again quoting Milbourn: “ ‘[t]he key 

test is whether the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the matter, not whether it 

departs from or adheres to the guidelines’ recommended range.’ ” Steanhouse II, slip op at 15, 

quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 662. 

Steanhouse I described several “important factors” that might be raised at sentencing to

satisfy the reasonableness requirement:

Where there is a departure from the sentencing guidelines, an appellate 

court’s first inquiry should be whether the case involves circumstances that 

are not adequately embodied within the variables used to score the 

guidelines. A departure from the recommended range in the absence of 

factors not adequately reflected in the guidelines should alert the appellate 

court to the possibility that the trial court has violated the principle of 

proportionality and thus abused its sentencing discretion. Even where some 

departure appears to be appropriate, the extent of the departure (rather than 

the fact of the departure itself) may embody a violation of the principle of 

proportionality. [Milbourn, 435 Mich at 659-660.]

Factors previously considered by Michigan courts under the 

proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the 

offense, People v Houston, 448 Mich. 312, 321; 532 NW2d 508 (1995); (2) 

factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines, id. at 324; and (3) 

factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the 

victim and the aggressor, id. at 323; Milbourn, 435 Mich at 660, the defendant’s 

misconduct while in custody, Houston, 448 Mich at 323, the defendant’s 

expressions of remorse, id., and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. 

[Steanhouse I, 313 Mich App at 45-46.]

The first inquiry in our reasonableness review is whether there were “circumstances . . . 

not adequately embodied within the variables used to score the guidelines.” As reiterated in 

Steanhouse II, slip op at 18, quoting Lockridge, 498 Mich at 391, “the guidelines ‘remain a 

highly relevant consideration in a trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion’ that trial courts 

‘must consult’ and ‘take into account when sentencing.’ ” To conduct such analysis, we must 

compare the stated reasons for exceeding the guidelines with the scored OVs to determine 

whether those reasons were already encompassed within. Specifically, we must determine 

whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a departure sentence without 
-4-

articulating whether the guidelines adequately took into account the conduct alleged to support 

the particular departure. Steanhouse I, 313 Mich App at 45-46.

Certain of the reasons cited by the trial court were taken into consideration under the only 

four variables scored in this matter: OVs 3, 9, 17, and 18. OV 3 was scored 50 points because a 

“[v]ictim was killed” and defendant’s BAC was greater than .08. MCL 777.33(1)(b), (2)(c)(ii). 

This encompassed defendant’s level of intoxication and recklessness. OV 9 was scored 10 

points because “2 to 9 victims . . . were placed in danger of physical injury or death,” MCL 

777.39(1)(c), again taking into account defendant’s recklessness. OV 17 was scored 5 points 

because defendant “failed to show the degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence in a 

similar situation would have shown,” MCL 777.47(1)(b), accounting for recklessness and 

excessive speeding. OV 18 was scored 15 points because defendant “operated a vehicle” with 

BAC between .15 and .20. MCL 777.48(1)(b). 

Defendant’s excessive speeds, reckless driving, and specific level of intoxication were 

therefore already considered under the four OVs that were scored to reach defendant’s total OV 

score of 80 points. The trial court did not explain how these factors were given inadequate 

weight. After all, defendant’s level of intoxication was directly taken into account under two 

OVs. Defendant’s reckless driving was explicitly considered under one factor and was a 

consideration under two others. And defendant’s excessive speeds were part and parcel of his 

recklessness. Yet, the trial court made no mention of the consideration taken of these factors 

under the guidelines. 

The trial court also relied upon defendant’s failure to accept responsibility and lack of 

remorse. While lack of remorse can provide proper justification for exceeding the legislative 

sentencing range “[a] court cannot base its sentence even in part on a defendant’s refusal to 

admit guilt.” People v Yennior, 399 Mich 892; 282 NW2d 920 (1977). The Michigan Supreme 

Court has adopted a three-factor test to determine if sentencing was “improperly influenced by 

defendant’s failure to admit guilt.” A court must consider:

(1) the defendant’s maintenance of innocence after conviction, (2) the judge’s

attempt to get the defendant to admit guilt, and (3) the appearance that had the 

defendant affirmatively admitted guilt, his sentence would not have been so 

severe. . . . [I]f there is an indication of the three factors, then the sentence was 

likely to have been improperly influenced by the defendant’s persistence in his 

innocence. If, however, the record shows that the court did no more than address 

the factor of remorsefulness as it bore upon defendant’s rehabilitation, then the 

court’s reference to a defendant’s persistent claim of innocence will not amount to 

error requiring reversal. [People v Wesley, 428 Mich 708, 713-714; 411 NW2d 

159 (1987) (citations omitted).]

Although the failure to admit guilt is an improper consideration, “the defendant’s expressions of 

remorse and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation” are appropriate justifications for 

sentence departures. Steanhouse I, 313 Mich App at 46 (citation omitted). 

The trial court’s reliance on defendant’s lack of remorse was an appropriate 

consideration. Defendant’s failure “to admit guilt” is not so clear cut. The court’s actual 
-5-

concern was that defendant blatantly lied about his alcohol consumption, excessive speeds, and 

the cause of the accident in the face of actual physical evidence—his blood tests results, the data

from his vehicle’s black box, and the accident scene forensics. 

Ultimately, after Steanhouse II, slip op at 19, this Court “must remand to the trial court 

for resentencing” when a lower court abuses its discretion by “failing to provide adequate 

reasons for the extent of the departure sentence imposed.” Given the trial court’s failure to 

acknowledge that certain factors were already considered under the OVs and the court’s use of 

defendant’s defensive attitude regarding the offense as a basis for the departure, we cannot deem 

the court’s cited reasons “adequate” to support “the extent of the departure sentence imposed.” 

As such, we must remand, again, for further sentencing proceedings. On remand, the trial court 

must address whether its cited departure reasons were given inadequate weight under the 

sentencing guidelines. Further, the court should redirect its concern regarding defendant’s 

claims of innocence toward his potential for rehabilitation.

We remand for further sentencing proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien